Right. That’s the point. Sorry for not making this clear earlier. Saying that it’s more than 14 days old doesn’t set any precedent, and in general I think the merits should be addressed if possible. That’s why I was talking about precedents earlier. For instance, I don’t want a case to be decided on the basis “well, this was ambiguous, so UNAWARE”, I want there to be an incentive to have a CFJ and figure out whether it was actually ILEGAL. The things most subject to CFJ are at the top for that reason. It’s the same way that, if I call an inquiry case, I don’t want to hear an answer that only addresses the exact technicalities of what’s going on at the moment, I want to know the general answer too. I was applying the same principle to criminal cases. Does my rationale make any sense?
-Aris On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:36 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > As an example, one of the easiest things to determine is whether > something happened 14+ days ago. However Justified, Inculpable, or > Unaware have (historically) been more subject to CFJs. This would > force someone to send a case to CFJ to determine if it fit one of > those more complicated categories before just outright saying "hey > this is 14+ days old, who cares if it was Justified?" > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > I'm not sure about this proliferation of verdicts. In a previous > system, > > > > many of your categories are actually done in the Sentencing phase. > > > > E.g. "Guilty/not guilty" was a finding of fact and the law, but > there > > > > was a [GREEN CARD EQUIVALENT] in the sentencing phase because the > action > > > > was Justified, or Untimely, or Unaware, etc. > > > > > > That's intresting. I'd like to keep the sentencing phase to the actual > > > determination of the penalty and settle other issuenin the verdict > phase. I > > > think the cascading format solves any problems that putting those in > the > > > verdict phase might otherwise cause. Do you see any I’ve missed? > > > > I don't see any you've missed, but now having looked through the comments > > I really agree with D. Margaux here. If something fits multiple > categories, > > all of which end with "no punishment", I think it's error-prone and > finicky > > to insist that only the first one in the list is appropriate. > > > > >
